MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251386534 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-93179/v1

Total Joint Arthroplasty Has Better Safety and Outcomes in Renal Transplant Patients Than in Dialysis Patients—A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

2020· preprint· en· W4251386534 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jiayi Li, Mingyang Li, Bo-qing Peng, Rong Luo, Quan Chen, Xin Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDialysisPeriprostheticMeta-analysisInternal medicineTransplantationRelative riskAdverse effectEnd stage renal diseaseJoint arthroplastyImmunosuppressionRenal functionSample size determinationSubgroup analysisArthroplastyHemodialysisIntensive care medicineSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are at an increased risk of needing total joint arthroplasty (TJA); however, both dialysis and renal transplantation might be potential predictors of adverse TJA outcomes. For dialysis patients, the high risk of blood-borne infection and impaired muscular-skeletal function are threats to the survival of implants, while, for renal transplant patients, immunosuppression therapy is also a concern. There is still no high-level evidence in the published literature that has determined the best timing of TJA for ESRD patients. Methods A literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to November 2019) was performed to collect studies that compared TJA outcomes between renal transplant patients and dialysis patients. Literature screening and quality assessments with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) were conducted by two reviewers. After the data were extracted, statistical analyses were performed.Results Compared with the dialysis group, a lower risk of mortality (RR=0.56, Cl= [0.42, 0.73], P<0.01, I2=49%) and revision (RR =0.42, CI = [0.30, 0.59], P < 0.01, I2=43%) was detected in the renal transplant group. Different results of periprosthetic joint infection were shown in subgroups with different sample sizes. There was no significant difference in periprosthetic joint infection in the small-sample-size subgroup, while in the large-sample-size subgroup, renal transplant patients had significantly less risk (RR =0.19, CI = [0.13, 0.23], P < 0.01, I2=0%). For dislocation, venous thromboembolic disease, and overall complications, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion Total joint arthroplasty has better safety and outcomes in renal transplant patients than in dialysis patients. Therefore, delaying total joint arthroplasty in dialysis patients until renal transplantation has been performed would be a desirable option. The controversy among different studies might be partially accounted for that quite a few studies have a qiute small sample size to detect the difference between renal transplant patients and dialysis patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.040
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207